Fatima first, Catholicism second?

Over at the Novus Ordo Watch blog, in the comment section of an article on Fatima, the site’s moderator declared the following:

“I have a big problem with those who make Fatima into a dogma, and we see them mostly in the semi-trad recognize-and-resist camp. Sadly, many of those people seem to believe in Fatima first, and in Catholicism only second. That’s why they evaluate everything, incl. sedevacantism, in light of Fatima. That blame has to be placed in large part, in my opinion, on the hyper-Fatimism of the Nicholas Gruner crowd.”

This statement, of course, was made in defense of sedevacantism; a position that I don’t hold regardless who might say otherwise.

So why even draw attention to it?

A couple of reasons…

One, the criticism of the “Nicholas Gruner crowd” is entirely unwarranted. In a more general sense, it occurs to me that this good and holy priest and his legacy are lacking in defenders just about now. As such, I’m not going to let this pass without comment.

(And yes, Cardinal Burke still owes Fr. Gruner an apology!)

Having had the privilege of speaking at a number of Fr. Gruner’s conferences, I know for a fact that he and others active in the Fatima Center’s efforts have a long track record of appropriately placing the apparitions squarely within the context of the Catholic faith.

At every conference I’ve attended, as well as in many of the articles and other pieces of literature published by the Center over the years, attention is frequently drawn to the purpose of Our Lady’s appearance and her warnings relative to the apostasy in the Church that “will begin at the top.”

In other words, the idea that Fr. Gruner pushed a “Fatima first, Catholicism second” agenda is patently absurd.

Beyond this, I’ve chosen to comment on the statement above because it has a thread of truth in it; a tangential one, mind you, but one that merits consideration.

The fact is there really are certain persons and groups that are pleased to treat (more appropriately, leverage) the Fatima message as if it can somehow be separated from the Catholic faith whole and entire.

The first such group that comes to mind are certain “pro-lifers” who are especially pleased to link their cause with Our Lady of Fatima in this centenary year of her appearance, but who are careful not to be “too Catholic” for fear of offending certain supporters.

The fact of the matter is Our Lady didn’t miraculously appear at Fatima to preempt the scourge of abortion; she came to deliver a message “about the dangers which menace the Church” and to issue “a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul.” (See Cardinal Pacelli’s commentary)

Good luck finding anything coming from Priests for Life or LifeSiteNews promoting that message; i.e., rejecting the Council’s treatment of religious liberty, insisting upon the Social Kingship of Christ, the Traditional Latin Mass, the Church’s prohibition against participation in ecumenical gatherings, etc.

As I’ve written in the past, the pro-life movement even among many self-identified Catholics is a religion all its own (“pro-lifeism”). As such, that its adherents are willing to twist the message of Fatima to their own ends only makes sense.

What does come as a surprise is the degree to which even some otherwise staunch defenders of traditional Catholicism (if you’ll forgive the redundancy) now appear willing to relegate the Faith to second place behind what they consider to be the most important portions of Our Lady’s message.

We saw this, for example, in the way in which the presentations given by Cardinal Burke and Fr. Linus Clovis at the recent Roman Life Forum were treated; specifically, with some in traditional Catholic media seeing fit to ignore entirely the deadly “leaven” clearly present in their respective “lumps.”

Without betraying confidences, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the decision to overlook these clerics’ praise for Vatican II, “Saint” John Paul II, and the “New Evangelization” (as if any of these things are compatible with the Fatima message), in favor of positively “spinning” (not my word) certain isolated statements about the consecration of Russia, was made deliberately.

In other words, it was the fruit of a well-calculated strategy devised on the part of a handful of influential persons (some well-known, others not so much) who determine the editorial content of much of well-established “traditional” Catholic media.

Does this relate in any way to the “softer” tone emanating from the SSPX; e.g., the regrettable slide from “We have in front of us a genuine Modernist” in 2013, to acquitting Francis of even contradicting revealed truth just four years later?

I am not entirely certain, but what I do know is that there is a relatively new and deeply disturbing phenomenon unfolding; a discernible “softening” in traditional circles that one can only hope reverses course before it becomes a bona fide trend.

Stay alert and stay tuned.

Cornelia Ferreira’s inaugural article, which will be ready soon, will provide more insight; some of which many will find jarring.

Believe me when I say that I do not fancy myself or my efforts anything terribly special; rather, I’m about as simple as they come: If something is true and important, I’ll say it. If it’s an error and dangerous, I’ll condemn it; plainly and publicly.

No spin. No strategy. No tactics.

Special? No. Rare? Unfortunately so.

You have my word that this blog will disappear before that ever changes.

At this, I wish to thank those of you who responded to my plea for financial support, and also those who have been providing it for some time. Each of you is in my prayers.

Please know, however, that as I write the need remains genuinely urgent.

Related Posts

Latest Comments

maryiloveherJune 7, 2017

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:
“If only we could say that the Conciliarists are beginning to convert – but that’s simply not true, not one, neither in Rome nor in the dioceses, none of them are converting.”

I think the Fatima message tends to support the sedevacantist position. I think the reluctance of certain sede’s to fully promote Fatima is because the sede position does not need Fatima to justify its opinion.

In sincerity and humility I can only inquire. How does one hold the position that the “apostasy”, “will begin at the top”, while at once simultaneously hold the position that the actual Chair of Peter is occupied by the actual Vicar of Christ Jesus, and all the while this man who occupies the purported “Chair of Peter” simultaneously, is “the top”? While considering this, we add the proclamation of Our Lady of LaSalette, whereby, “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist”, “The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay”, and “The Church will have a frightful crisis.” To “lose the faith” is to enter apostasy. To be in eclipse is to be mostly or entirely invisible and yet exist wholly and entirely. The understanding of the Papal election by the “College of Cardinals” occurs only as that same College of Cardinals is as chief of the Roman clergy. It is the Roman clergy who elects the Holy Roman Pontiff as the so called, “Bishop of Rome”. By annex, the Bishop of Rome is the Chief Pastor and Shepherd of Holy Mother Church. This idea that there cannot be an Holy Roman Pontiff, in eclipse as is the Holy Church in the existential now, is simply not true. As it is reasonable to believe that the College of Cardinals has indeed fallen, the responsibility of the valid Papal election falls back to the Roman clergy, even without its “Chief”. And so as the Church is in eclipse, Her Vicar of Christ cannot be, WHY? In caritas.

Rather, that which is manifestly evident and as thus objectively understood, resting as res ipsa loquitur, is the utter reality that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as so called “Pope Francis”, gave adulation to Martin Luther, actually paying homage to him while accompanying a female, so called “Lutheran bishop”, while traveling to a foreign land to accomplish this blasphemy, at once opening the blasphemous celebration of his 500th year anniversary, commemorating Luther’s own personal persecution of the Mystical Body of Christ in this wretched world, where we can only remain in exile. This, as the nascent genesis for the preparation of the anti-Chruch, which we now find in our midst as so called, “sola scriptura” or the “religion of man”, at once masquerading as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Its only fundamental and real problem is that in truth it is simply not Catholic, rather it blasphemes Catholicism with its heretical Popes, who all embraced Nostra Aetate and Dignitatus Humanae, as first fruits of the anti-Church which calls itself “Catholic” and yet it simply cannot be. Those (and they do not exist in isolation) “Vatican II” documents, which purport to rest within the infallible Ordinary Magisterium, simply cannot, as they are heretical in their teaching when placed adjacent to the Ordinary teaching Magisterium of Holy Mother Church for the preceding two millennia, this as understood simply according to right reason. This proposition simply places a metaphysical affront to the law of non-contradiction, which the authentic Church of Christ Jesus simply cannot do. You see, to place the words “heretical” and “Pope” in juxtaposition, causes an internal contradiction in understanding, which as properly understood metaphysically cannot exist, and that is, a Pope cannot at once be “Pope” and be an “heretic”, “manifest”, as an objective reality, or “formal”, as pertinacious in reality. As the Catholic encyclopedia teaches, “…although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics,…”. As thus understood, again objectively and not by virtue of conjecture, as your comment about the dead man Luther, Jorge Mario Bergoglio can simply not be Pope, as properly understood ontologically, as his very existence as “Pope” places an affront to the law of non-contradiction, as one who is indeed outside of Holy Mother Church cannot at the same time be inside the Catholic Church as the authentic Vicar of Christ in this world. This demonstration is tedious by virtue of metaphysical analysis but the truth remains as truth. I pray this helps. In caritas.

It is the height of absurdity to call sedevacatism protestant. Firstly, a Catholic is required to assent to the Magesterial teaching of the Pope in union with the Bishops. So, does your typical Novus Order pew sitter do this? Since 95% or more contracept and disagree with Church teaching, I would say that most Novus Ordo types act protestant. Picking and choosing what they want to believe. They are all their own magesterium. Next the semi trad resistors. They have taken it upon themselves to sift and decide for themselves which teachings are magesterial and which are not thereby picking and choosing what they want to believe just like the Novus Ordoists. They too act protestants. Sedevacantists on the other hand reject no magesterial teaching, they simply reject the claimant to the office since the claimant teaches heresy objectively. I can already hear the objections that we are making our own personal judgments too. It is true, but it is true of all human beings when assenting to a teaching. We need to have faith that the authority teaching us actually has the authority to teach us. RR types say yes but then refuse to listen. At least the sede camp is consistent. We say Bergolio does not have the authority to teach us because if he did then we would sin if we assented.

You clearly state the reality of what it is that is being done, once again, relating the three positions of which you speak. It is wonderful knowing the Peace of Christ Jesus, that which only He can give, not of this world and your authentically Catholic position reflects just that. In caritas.

SFC, I think Luther would be more approving of Francis, that any label. However he’s got other things on his plate, so to speak, so being concerned about how pleased he is or is not is not going to aid his cause. The dies have been caste, and now the rot from the top seeps down, as if by gravity in fact and in deed. The weak limp wristed and the silenced ones, clergy either shamefaced or riddled with guilty, but too scared to speak.
Our Lady and Mother of the Church, ora pro nobis.

So, Louie isn’t a sedevacantist according to his own words (fine), yet undermines the infallible decree of the putative Pope with his “Saint” John Paul II rhetoric and yet thinks he holds a logical and Catholic view?

You’ve got to be kidding. How many self-appointed Catholic heralds of “the real” who are woefully ignorant of the true doctrine of the Papacy and its implications are there in this deluded bunker of Babel? The Skojecs, the Verrechios, the Barnhardts, the “Tantum Blogos” (LOL!), the Matts and Jacksons — when will one of them stop, take a step back, educate themselves on true Catholic doctrine and then think through their views before typing another word?

The gates of Hell will not prevail. The modern Popes are at the very least, links in an unbroken chain. It’s up to the individual Catholic to plot a course through the minefield of heresy, all the while trusting in Our Lord and Our Lady.

In 1988, the Latin Rite Mass was in real danger of being lost. By the grace of God, Archbishop Lefebvre was there to save the Catholic Mass and the Catholic Priesthood. We have been given everything we need to save our souls.

The Great Apostasy has been foretold from the beginning. Now that we are in the thick of it, try not to freak out and condemn even the good guys. Stand fast and hold to Tradition. Almighty God, who alone can look into the human heart, will render an exact judgement.

Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Let us pray unceasingly to the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, the Holy Angels, St. Pius X, to come to our help so that the Catholic Faith may triumph over errors. Let us remain united in this Faith, let us avoid disputations, let us love one another, let us pray for those who persecute us and let us render good for evil.”

The “unbroken chain” thing is entirely misunderstood. It really means that each valid successor to the Chair of Peter holds the very same Primacy as Peter, not that there can’t be an interregnum (period without a Pope) of any particular length.

Those who hold Francis as Pope yet disobey and trash him have actually, in conscience, moved themselves outside of the Church. This is provable in infallible Church documents. The actual Pope cannot be a heretic and teach error (which also can be proven without question), or the gates have prevailed.

Once again, why do most find it necessary to conflate what is perceived as the Church in Rome, including this anti-pope, with the true Catholic Church? Many are called; few are chosen. If the remnant is truly the direct line from Christ to today, why would those who have evolutionarily created a new sect be considered that against which the gates of hell shall not prevail? Is that not possible?

Novus Ordo sacraments? It was Abp Lefebrve I believe, who spoke of supplied jurisdiction in this time of emergency. So even according to the good Archbishop, a figurehead imposter on the See of Peter is not needed to supply jurisdiction. The SSPX never counted on any conciliar pope for their jurisdiction, so why is it crucial that the See be occupied at all times? We all know the Church survives and jurisdiction survives during interregnums. So please explain why a Pope is needed for jurisdiction when ecclesia supplet.

RushintuitJune 9, 2017

I can only say that’s the way it has always been. I don’t think Our Lord would be so cruel as to pull the rug out from 100’s of millions of souls by changing the Church from visible to invisible.

A Simple BeggarJune 9, 2017

Oh no, he wouldn’t? God’s ways are not our ways. I was recently thinking about this – trying to figure it out – and then suspected that I may have “cracked” it. I later found this on the Vision of Pope Leo XIII:

The vast majority of those hundreds of millions of poor innocent souls don’t believe in the authority of the Church.

They don’t believe in the Blessed Sacrament, Confession, Baptising one’s children, or that the practice of contraception is mortally sinful.

The argument that God would never take the Sacraments away – not from US! – is not founded upon anything but emotion. If any one of the four necessary elements of a sacrament are not present – the minister, matter, form and intention to do what the Church does – then there is no Sacrament.

There are those who insist that they are valid, and those who insist that they aren’t. The safe option, both in theory and in practice, is to hold that the Novus Ordo Mass, the new rite of Confirmation, the new rite of Extreme Unction and the New rite of Holy Orders are gravely doubtful.

Not That GuyJune 8, 2017

Louie, can you please delete my original comment in this thread? It was uncharitable in parts and I am sorry for that.

Rush, we must remember that the whole of entirety of human kind, less Our Blessed Mother, was and is born damned. It is only by the absolute undeserved gift of Christ’s sacrifice that any of us has a chance of salvation. You may not think it “fair” or “just” that the Church may be eclipsed from view to billions of humans, but you cannot rule it out.

But, the Church of Rome is still visible to billions. It is the dogma of the Faith that has been hidden. That is the essence of the Spiritual Chastisement.

I have complete trust in Our Lady of the Rosary to safeguard the SSPX. The current SSPX Rosary Crusade has to be very pleasing to Our Lady. I’m not comfortable making personal judgements about the fates of millions upon millions of souls. That is way above my calling as an ordinary Catholic.

What about safe guarding the Church. Why would Our Lady safeguard SSPX and not the entire Church? And no one is making internal forum judgments about millions of souls. All we can observe is the external objective reality and the view is awful. You as an ordinary Catholic make personal judgments all the time. You made such personal judgments when you rejected sedevacatism, supported the SSPX and accepted Francis as Pope.

You had this to say, “But, the Church of Rome is still visible to billions. It is the dogma of the Faith that has been hidden. That is the essence of the Spiritual Chastisement.” The reality of what you opine Rushintuit is found authentically in the Church’s age old proclamation, “lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi”, translated as, the law of prayer, is the law of belief, is the law of the life of faith lived. It is as an algebraic equation. When one variable is altered, as the relationship of the equation must be preserved, the outcome itself must be different. This, Rushintuit, is mathematical reality, which as all true reality, is unalterable. For some, mathematical realities are more easily recognized than practical realities.

For demonstration of this reality of the algebraic relationship of the equation,” lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi, equals Catholic ” in this instance, and seeing that the relationship of that same equation must be preserved, let’s add what you opined, “It is the dogma of the Faith that has been hidden.”, into that equation. As the dogma of the Faith speaks directly to the belief of the Faith, as the dogma supports and underpins the belief, the part of the algebraic equation which you are claiming has changed, as it is “hidden” in your words, and if it is “hidden” there must be something that has replaced it as nature abhors a vacuum, is the “lex credendi”, the belief. In order to preserve the integrity of the algebraic relationship as the objective reality that it is, if we change the variable of lex credendi as you suggest, then the outcome must also change. The sum of the equation must change. To demonstrate now with numbers: 1+2+3=6 as a+b+c=d or as lex orandi + lex credendi + lex vivendi = Catholic, in this particular instance. If lex credendi is changed as “b” is changed from a number “2” to a number “3”, lets say, the outcome on the right side of the “=” sign must also change to maintain the integral relationship of the equation. As 1+3+3=7 and no longer “6”, so does the change in dogma, “lex credendi”, change the outcome from “Catholic” to something other than and as the outcome is now something other than Catholic, it can no longer be the “Catholic Church’s” Religion which this change in dogma supports, rather another religion wholly and entirely other than Catholic, in spite of what these prelates, who are either themselves deceived or they are frankly minions of Lucifer as deceivers themselves, tell us. They can tell us all day and everyday that this Novus Ordo creature beast thing is “Catholic” and yet the mathematical, and as thus the objective reality, tells us something wholly and entirely different. This is simply the application of “right reason” Rushintuit and as Almighty God alone is the Author of right reason, and as God cannot cause Himself to be in an internal contradiction, the authentic Catholic Church cannot contradict right reason. This is the teaching of the Angelic Doctor, that we can only rightly reason by virtue of our actual participation in the Mind of God Himself to do so. I pray this helps. In caritas.

In Caritas: Your responses are fascinating and enlightening, especially to one like me who tries so very hard to think using logic and right reason as I seek absolute Truth in these critical matters. Those who know you are surely blessed.

P. S. Please pray for me, that I may victorious in my present trial, for the Greater Glory of God.

In caritasJune 10, 2017

Dearest Simple Beggar,

As I am and can only ever remain, this side the veil, a perfectly miserable human creature as we all indeed are, while at once knowing with certitude that we are perfectly and infinitely loved by the One Who Is Love as Deus Caritas Est, I offer my plea to you in return, while in humility: please pray for me, my family, and my friends. Know that you are in my prayers as I offer all my miserable creatureliness to the Immaculate Heart, our Mother, our love, the mother of the One Who Is Love, and at once implore her to perfect it as she offers it at the foot of the singularly Holy Cross of Her Beloved Son and Sacred Heart, our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.

A Simple BeggarJune 11, 2017

In Caritas: I hope to be eternally grateful for your prayers – thank you so very much. My own humble prayers for you and yours commenced yesterday, and you were remembered at Mass today. May God grant that we one day meet…in Heaven.

The Papal SubjectJune 11, 2017

The visibility of the Church is not founded or bound by anything except the visible bonds of 1. Faith and 2. Social Charity.

If there is no unity of Faith among a body of men, then whatever that body of men is, it is not the visible Catholic Church, but some sect.

If the unity of Faith is present, but there is no peaceful and visible social unity, which is manifested primarily by submission and obedience to the legitimate pastors of the Church, then again, whatever this body of men may be, it is not the Catholic Church.

The Church is visible because of the visible bonds of Faith and Social Charity. If a group is lacking one or both, then it is not the Catholic Church.

If men belong to such invisible sects, but wear the attire of Catholic clergy, that just means they are just wearing costumes and playing dressup. It doesn’t make them the visible Catholic Church by itself.

Indeed what you wrote is helpful. That is a beautiful and concise explanation of what the “visible Church” can only be, that which evidences the One True Faith, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, outside of which there exists no salvation. Through these visible bonds of Faith and Caritas, of which you speak, flows the only real Hope, this side of eternity, which can only find its wellspring in the Faith and therefore in Caritas Amen.
Alleluia. In caritas.

Mr Salza is making a weak analogy when he states that a priest who is a heretic can still absolve sins as if that is proof that a heretic can be Pope. It is well known that once ordained a priest it matters not one iota if the heretic/priest believes any of it, the sacrament is conferred as long as the heretic/priest intends to to what the Church does. Once ordained the nature of the man is changes eternally. He may sever himself from the Church but he will always be the priest. Same with a bishop. But the office of Pope does not change the nature of the man. He is not indelibly marked for eternity with the papacy. It is a temporary office. While Pope, he is granted special protection to speak infaillably when speaking on matters of faith and morals. If the man falls into heresy at some point, he loses the office of papacy, but not the character of a bishop. For he is severed from the church spiritually. And since no human power can judge the office of the Papacy, then no severing of the legal bond is possible, hence its not needed.

Salza and Siscoe reduce the entire Papacy to meaninglessness. The Pope can be a heretic, the pope can be faithful. He can teach error and heresy, he can teach goodness and truth. You decide which is which.

They make the Papacy completely useless, and then go fifteen rounds defending the man claiming the office against anyone who so much as doubts that Bergoglio might not be who he claims.

Paul Folbrecht is friends with them. Maybe he can shed some light in a twenty-thousand word comment.

Their “angle” can only find its genesis in pride, as Siscoe’s affront to caritas can only speak to, in this instance. If you read the words of Siscoe in his most recent diatribe at “The Remnant”, what you see there is an attack on what he, in a pristinely pedantic and pejorative tone, refers to as “vigilante sedevacantists”, for instance. Shame on Michael Matt for entertaining such a voice of an ad hominem approach to authentic, intellective Catholicism, while at once masquerading as “learned”. Siscoe creates nothing more than a mirage, an illusion, as he conflates the potential for mortal sin in the act of “formal heresy”, as though it is the reason why the “formal heretic” is in schism. As any Catholic who understands the Faith will know, mortal sin does not somehow, from its immanence as mortal sin, cause schism. Heresy in any form begets schism, whether material (objective) or formal (internal forum or proven through pertinacity as objectively witnessed), as the Catholic Encyclopedia teaches and is quoted here: “Heresy is opposed to faith; schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all the Church proposes for our belief (II-II, Q. xxix, a. 1).” It remains to be simply and authentically Catholic, to acknowledge what any truly believing Catholic knows, that the Chair of Saint Peter can be, as it has been, vacant at any given point in time, while at once there exists no dogma to suggest that there is any particular time frame whereby the vacancy cannot pass through. As our Blessed Lady of LaSalette proclaimed, “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist”. As being cannot both be and not be, at the same time and under the same respect (the metaphysical law of non-contradiction), Rome cannot both be the seat of the Antichrist while having lost the faith (as thus in apostasy), and simultaneously hold the faith and therefore also evidence the authentic Chair of Saint Peter.

Siscoe looks more like the schismatic in his diatribe, as he places opposition to charity with his ad hominem attack. We will remind ourselves of the words, paraphrased, of our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ: A man can give away everything he owns, including the shirt off his back, and even his very life, and I still don’t know him, as he did not do it in My name (in Love as Deus Caritas Est). In caritas.

Well put In Caritas, I believe many fear sedevacantism because of this notion of schism. No amount of logic seems to work on them until they realize that they must be in schism to retain the faith otherwise they are guilty of heresy. But it is not schism from the Catholic Church that they must accept. It is schism from the Conciliar Church. This becomes very emotional since it relates to family and friends and heritage. Until they realize this, they will run around confused, angry, and rationalizing the latest heresy they hear from the pulpit. It is ironic too because many of these folks stil retain the Catholic faith and are very good at pointing out errors of the NuChurch. But connecting the dots to the conclusion that NuChurch is not the Catholic Church is beyond their emotional ability.